In journalism the writers don't write the heds. That's an editor's job. It goes back to the days of print journalism when only the editor would know how many column-inches they would have for a given story on any given page. It's still industry standard for digital publishing as well.
The US has an easy way out of the demographic trap through immigration. Countries like China and Japan don't have that because no one wants to immigrate to China and Japan basically doesn't allow it at all.
Except that the "existing consensus" as portrayed in the article is phony in the sense that no anthropologist has seriously believed or promulgated binary hunting and gathering roles for men and women since at least the 1960s. That may be a notion that exists in the popular imagination, but it doesn't exist in contemporary anthropology and hasn't for decades.
Nice! Mine is a 3.2 liter V6 6 speed manual but w/o the turbo. It has a shitload of torque in 1st and 2nd, but isn't very fast or powerful once it's in third, 4th or 5th gear, which is fine with me.
It also has an extended bed and a canopy with flip-up windows on the sides. I've installed a roof-rack and have lifted the truck 2 inches together with aftermarket shocks and a new set of leaf springs. I've also installed "bullhorns" on the front together with "brush racks" to protect my old headlights.
All in all she's a pretty mean truck. I've taken her out with friends who are hardcore Jeep aficionados, and she's more than acquitted herself.
Maybe not now, but that's not the point. The point is that we're all human beings and what history shows us again and again is that as a species we are capable of talking ourselves into group-level insanity.
There's nothing about history that should lead anyone to imagine that the capacity for group-insanity is somehow unique to any so-called "race" or national identity.
If you really want to argue that Americans are somehow uniquely subject to such things, you then have to account for the fact that a plurality of Americans are directly descended from European ancestry which in turn means that any difference has to be cultural as opposed to some kind of genetic quality innate to Americans.
The upshot here is not that the US is somehow unique, but is rather that the US is precisely what happens when Europeans take over a brand new continent peopled by civilizations that lack the technology and microbiology to resist.
Again, this idea of yours, that Americans are somehow unique or special, is patently absurd given what we know of history.
That's the way it should be and would be here in the US but for a suite of historical and socio-political influences that have tended to fracture the skilled trade unions into different specialties.
Fortunately most of the big unions fall under the AFL-CIO umbrella, but our laws are such that it's not the case that AFL-CIO can negotiate as a single block.
And of course some of that is simply due to scale since what makes sense in one part of the US doesn't necessarily make sense in another.
No, it's true. It is the consensus among historians. This appears to upset a lot of atheists, not sure why. It has no effect whatsoever on my own atheism since whether or not the biblical figure has a historical basis doesn't play into my lack of belief in god.
A better way to put it is that the consensus is that a historical figure named Jesus, upon whom the biblical figure is based, did in fact exist. The actual details of his life are almost entirely unknown apart from, as you say, a few key events for which we have multiple credible sources. We have a better read on his teachings, but even that's not entirely clear since a lot of the gospels contradict one another and can be interpreted in many different ways.
I think you need to read 1984 a little more carefully. There're a few critical details you appear to have missed, but don't feel bad; a lot of readers make similar mistakes.
By "the most well-armed portion of the populace" I assume you mean law enforcement? It's an odd way of putting it, but it's the only interpretation that makes sense because Bubba and his fellow militia members sure as fuck aren't coming to the defense of the one percent.
There's a lot of bullshit in this thread. People can wear shorts in cold weather either a) if it's not that cold, or b) if it's not for a long period of time. I've been in -50 and -60 degrees fahrenheit weather in Alaska and Montana and Wyoming and when it gets that cold any exposed skin is a huge liability and will become frostbitten and/or severely painful in a very short amount of time. Left untreated it will turn necrotic which is not good. You also, pretty much no matter what you're wearing, can't stop moving at those temps unless you are in some kind of shelter.
When I worked on The Slope in Alaska back in the 90s we used to do 20 minutes outside and then 20 minutes inside for full 16-hour shifts.
That said, it can be kind of invigorating and of course you do get used to it and learn to not let it bother you.
Edit: Also, if anyone cares, I'm not proud of having worked for Big Oil on The Slope back in the day. At the time I was young, it was a big adventure and it paid big money that allowed me to do a lot of other things that I otherwise would never have been able to do. Also, it was all union work through IUPAT DC5 which I am still an active member/activist of today.
The first too is misspelled. It should have two Os.